Global Warming and God

7/31/2019 Global Warming and God

1/17


2/17

Global Warming and GodScience and God versus Republicans

D. F. Paulaha, Ph.D.

2


3/17

Copyright 2012 by Dennis F. Paulaha.

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may bereproduced or transmitted in any form whatsoever or byany means, electronic or mechanical, including printing orphotocopy, without permission in writing from thepublisher, except for short quotes in critical articles orreviews.

First published 2012 by:Dennis F. Paulaha.

3


4/17

1

In the beginning

As soon as Republicans gained control of the House ofRepresentatives, they announced that they were goingto fight all attempts to address the dangers of globalwarming.

Although doing so means risking the economicwellbeing of the United States and the world, as well asthe survival of mankind, the Republican argument isthat this is an issue of God versus science, and that God

is on their side.One of the long-standing canons of AmericanConservatives is that science is evil and that we musttrust God instead of science. In other words, God's Wordtrumps the words of scientists, especially in the globalwarming debate.

In other words, according to Republicans, God'sWord trumps the words of scientists, especially in the

global warming debate.And because God said global warming is not real,

Republicans feel justified in saying that climate changeis a liberal hoax.

Or, if they are forced to admit that climate change isreal, they claim it is not man made.

4


5/17

In either case, Republicans say we do not have toworry about climate change, because of what God said.

In other words, Republicans have two-step dancearound what may be one of mankinds most seriousissues.

Step one is to claim that global warming is a liberalhoax, based on the testimonies of a few paid-offscientists.

Step two, when they are forced to admit that thatargument does not hold water, is to pull out The Bibleand refer to the Word of God.

It is scary to watch people defend their position by

offering up the testimonies of scientific quacks.It is even scarier to watch people lie about what Godsaid.

5


6/17

2

The Rebible (The Bible according to

Republicans)

A New York Times article, covering statements made by

Representative John Shimkus (R-Ill.), explains howShimkus, a high-ranking Republican legislator, deniesclimate change on the grounds of his belief that nothing

bad can come of the Earth unless it is preordained byGod.

The article explains how Shimkus, a member of theHouse Committee on Energy and Commerce since 1997,submitted a letter to his colleagues asking for their

blessing in his campaign to assume the chairmanship ofthe House Committee on Energy and Commerce afterRepublicans took control of the chamber.

In an exchange between Shimkus and Democrats in asubcommittee meeting back in 2009, when Democratsstill controlled the Energy Committee, Shimkus arguedthat we should reject the conclusions of climate changescientists and replace their findings with the Word of

God.The Toronto Star printed the entire exchange. It

shows Shimkus wholly rejecting any possible potentialfor man-made climate consequences due to his faith thatonly God can "destroy this Earth."

6


7/17

Shimkus began his argument by referring to what hecalled God's post-Flood promise to Noah in Genesis8:21-22: "Never again will I curse the ground because ofman, even though all inclinations of his heart are evilfrom childhood and never again will I destroy all livingcreatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures,

seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer andwinter, day and night, will never cease."

Shimkus then explained the Republican position: "Ibelieve that's the infallible word of God, and that's theway it's going to be for his creation."

Shimkus then quoted Matthew 24:31: "And he willsend his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will

gather his elect from the four winds from one end of theheavens to the other."Wrapping up his Word of God argument, Shimkus

explained Gods Word in is own words: The Earth willend only when God declares it's time to be over. Manwill not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not bedestroyed by a Flood. I do believe that God's word isinfallible, unchanging, perfect."1

7

1 November 10, 2010; Cathal Kelly, STAFF REPORTER, Toronto Star.


8/17

Okay, then. Let us all agree that "...God's word isinfallible, unchanging, perfect."

The question is: What is it that God really said in thepassages chosen by Shimkus?

To begin with, God said that all inclinations ofShimkus's heart are evil, unless Shimkus wants to say he

is not a man. As such, the big question is whether or notShimkus is putting his words in God's mouth, which, aswe all know, is blasphemy.

God said, ...never again will I destroy all livingcreatures as I have done.

According to Shimkus, that promise refers to Godsdestruction of all living creatures with the great flood.

Of course, that is not exactly true, thanks to Noah andthe ark.Anyway, that's good. Who can be against a promise

from God that He will not destroy us all?I know I like the idea.Of course, the scientific concern with global

warming is not that it will destroy all living creatures,but that it will cause a climate change that will

adversely affect man, which God created in His image.

8


9/17

According to the passage quoted by Shimkus, Godpromises to not destroy all living creatures, but He doesnot promise to stop evil people, like Shimkus, fromdestroying our health and wealth or to save our childrenfrom the fires of hell Shimkus and the Republicans want

to spread over the earth so their big corporate friendscan make a few extra dollars.

The catch is, God did not promise to not destroyman. Not in that passage from Genesis.

He promised to not destroy all living creatures,which is not the same. As such, we can believe there will

be some living creatures left when Shimkus is done,

even if man disappears from God's earth.

9


10/17

Shimkus and the Republicans can argue that whenGod said He would not destroy all living creatures, Hemeant man, or, at the very least, Republicans.

But that is not what God said. God was very specific.He said, "Never again will I curse the ground becauseof man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evilfrom childhood and never again will I destroy all livingcreatures as I have done.

It seems to me, God was pretty clear. He promised tonever again curse the ground because of man. And Hesaid he would not destroy all living creatures.

Do Shimkus and the Republicans want to argue thatGod made a mistake? That in the beginning of Hissentence, he refers to man as man and then He uses theidea of all living creatures to also refer to man? That is a

pretty tough argument to make if you want to say, "Ibelieve that's the infallible word of God, and that's theway it's going to be for his creation."

It seems to me that the infallible word of God saysthat the next time He gets so mad at man that He wantsto destroy mankind, He will not destroy all livingcreatures at the same time. According to the passage,God did not decide that man is not evil. In fact, He says

that He still believes that ...all inclinations of his heartare evil from childhood...

10


11/17

Shimkuss next passage of proof is, "As long as theearth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat,summer and winter, day and night, will never cease."

Of course, that passage has nothing to do with globalwarming. It is God's promise to keep the seasons going.But He does not promise that the seasons will not bechanged or that man will be around to enjoy them.

11


12/17

3

Global warming is not a problem,

because God said so. Or did He?

According to Shimkus, not God, "The Earth will endonly when God declares it's time to be over. Man willnot destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed

by a Flood.Aside from not being willing to accept any of

Shimkus's blasphemous declarations, it should be clearto anyone who believes that God's word is infallible,

unchanging, perfect, that God never said, "Man will notdestroy this Earth." Shimkus said it. And we know thatShimkus is evil (because God said so). So there is noreason to listen to Shimkus (or any of his blasphemouscolleagues) let alone to allow Shimkus's blasphemouspronouncements to destroy mankind. I, along with God,care about the existence of living creatures, especiallymankind, not just the earth.

12


13/17


14/17

Therefore, if we believe that God's word is infallible,unchanging, perfect, we are now in a fight to protectwhat God created.

On one side are science and God.On the other are Republicans who are happy to

destroy God's creations in order to make a few moredollars for their corporate backers.

It should be clear to anyone who believes in Godthat Shimkus does not speak for God.

It should also be clear that, according to Godswords, not Shimkuss, God did not say He would notdestroy all of mankind again (with another flood or with

fire) in order to protect other living creatures from thedestruction evil men are waging on His earth. He verywell might.

Of course, He doesnt have to bother. Shimkus andhis friends will do it for Him.

According to Gods promise, the earth will still behere. And there will still be some living creatures.

14


15/17

4

Speaking for God

All real Christians should agree with Shimkus when he

says ...God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.The big question is: Did God say what Shimkus and

the Republicans say He said?Or are Shimkus and the Republicans putting words

in Gods mouth?The answer is that Republicans are lying about what

God said, which, according to true Christians, is thegreatest sin.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

15


16/17

Read the Genesis passage carefully. That passage,which is the passage all Republicans use to deny theexistence of global warming and climate change, hasnothing to do with God promising that He will not sendanother flood or that, if He does, that He will notdestroy all mankind in the process.

It does say that God still believes that all inclinations

of mans heart are evil.And what can be more evil than wanting to destroy

what God made--His earth, His living creatures, andman--with global warming?

The debate about climate change is not a debatebetween science and religion. It is a debate between aRepublican cult on one side and true Christians and true

scientists on the other.Republicans do what all cults do. They take carefullychosen passages from an acceptable source, in this caseThe Bible, and put their own interpretations on them. Assuch, they are at odds with the true Word of God, asgiven in The Bible.

16


17/17

5

Conclusion

The obvious conclusion is that anyone who believes in

the real Bible and/or in real science should take globalwarming and climate change seriously. Amen.

17

Global Warming and God

Documents

Transcript of Global Warming and God